Orenthal James Simpson 1947 - 2024. Was he a murderer?

[sterngard friegen]

He did it. And he confessed, in 2006: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/did ... 00672.html

[Maybenaut]

I was on an airplane when the verdict was announced. The captain came over the airplane’s PA system and announced it. Stunned silence in the cabin.

Later, I saw a video of mostly Black law students reacting joyously at the verdict, and my first thought was, “There are things going on in this country that I am completely unaware of.” That was a sobering moment for me.

I think he did it. I think the jury knew he did it. This was the DA’s case to lose, and with Judge Ito’s help, they lost it.

[p0rtia]

My take is jury nullification (I'm not alone in that belief, obviously--a few of the jurors agree, at least in retrospect).

If so, how can you put the onus on judge or prosecution?

Remember thee stunned look on Kardashian's face?

[Maybenaut]

My take is jury nullification (I'm not alone in that belief, obviously--a few of the jurors agree, at least in retrospect).

If so, how can you put the onus on judge or prosecution?

Remember thee stunned look on Kardashian's face?

It dragged on a lot longer than it needed to. The DA put Fuhrman on the stand. And Ito did not exercise any control (I remember him saying something to the effect of, “Counsel, I’ve warned you eleven times about this already…” Prosecutors insisted he put the gloves on, etc.

If the case had been better tried, the jury may not have nullified (if that’s what it was).

[Reality Check]

It dragged on a lot longer than it needed to. The DA put Fuhrman on the stand. And Ito did not exercise any control (I remember him saying something to the effect of, “Counsel, I’ve warned you eleven times about this already…” Prosecutors insisted he put the gloves on, etc.

If the case had been better tried, the jury may not have nullified (if that’s what it was).

I agree with this post and your post above.

I recall that during Marcia Clark's closing argument Johnny Cochran objected to almost every other sentence. Ito kept overruling but never stepped in to admonish Cochran to cut it out. The result was Clark's closing was completely disjointed and ineffective. Of course that was Cochran's goal all along. I had never seen that tactic used before or and haven't since.

[RVInit]

[bob]

If the case had been better tried, the jury may not have nullified (if that’s what it was).

Too also: The case was tried in the downtown courthouse, not the courthouse closest to the murder scene.

While the downtown courthouse has superior security, a different courthouse may have resulted in a different venire (and a different judge).

[Reality Check]

This is a podcast with Kato Kalin and Detective Tom Lange who was on the case. He talks about evidence the prosecution chose not to enter in the case. I found this interesting - it's over an hour though.

[p0rtia]

Thanks for that!

[Reality Check]

I think I saw an interview with Tom Lange when his first book came out. He is good. He said when they interviewed OJ after he got back from Chicago the day after the murders his hand was still bleeding. He said OJ changed his story about 3 times on how he cut his hand during the 30 minute interview. He was OK with Marcia Clark initially but came not to trust her during the trial. He also said treating Kato Kalin as a hostile witness during the trial was a stupid move.

Another tidbit I didn't know is that OJ was on the board of Forschner the US importer of Victoriaknox who makes Swiss army knives. OJ had been to a board meeting a few weeks before the murder. His limo driver remembered he had a bag with a collection of knives and watches he had been given. The limo driver said OJ had out one large knife he was admiring. OJ said man you could kill somebody with this. OJ offered a knife to the driver but he said he preferred a watch instead. Of course that story didn't come out at trial either.

[sterngard friegen]

If the case had been better tried, the jury may not have nullified (if that’s what it was).

Too also: The case was tried in the downtown courthouse, not the courthouse closest to the murder scene.

While the downtown courthouse has superior security, a different courthouse may have resulted in a different venire (and a different judge).

SImpson was initially charged on an information. The case was sent to the West District (the courthouse in Santa Monica) since the crime was committed in that venue. The Santa Monica courthouse is on the small size.

The press then overwhelmed the clerk's office. And the public clamored to see the charges.

Gil Garcetti, the D.A., decided to indict Simpson so that the case could be transferred to the downtown Criminal Courts Building. It could handle the crowds and also had high security courtrooms. Indicted cases were generally sent downtown.

The case was tried in a better courthouse and courtroom, but not before a jury of the victims' neighbors. And Judge Ito was an awful trial judge.

The civil case was tried to a jury in Santa Monica. Q.E.D.

[Reality Check]

This lady could have put OJ at the murder scene but Marcia Clark "wanted to make an example of her".

[p0rtia]

Thanks RC. That's an excellent interview. I've never before heard that Shively called the cops and gave them OJ's name and licence # the night of the murder. Marcia C was indeed a fool.

[Reality Check]

Thanks RC. That's an excellent interview. I've never before heard that Shively called the cops and gave them OJ's name and licence # the night of the murder. Marcia C was indeed a fool.

Yes, most of this was new to me or I had forgotten a lot. So Marcia Clark's issue was that she took $5000 from Hard Copy for an interview. However, at least according to Shively the prosecution never told her not to do that. They only said don't talk to the defense. They did not do a thing to protect her and she was besieged by the press almost immediately. Others in the DA's office and the police wanted to use her testimony regardless of the interview but Clark wouldn't even consider it.

Another juicy tidbit was that an assistant DA who was against charging OJ had told Clark Shively had a criminal record. She had been already been checked out and didn't. I can't believe it but after watching two of these I am actually starting to like Kato Kalin. He at least comes across as honest and pretty articulate.

Clark's attitude was certainly more of an issue than I think we have been told. She was facing a formidable legal team of all stars and thought she had a solid enough case she could take them on and win.

[RVInit]

The case against OJ was rock solid, but unfortunately the reputation of the LAPD killed the case. Lange comes across as a good person, but trying to blame the prosecution is just ignoring the truth of the matter - LAPD had a horrific reputation. I have lived on the opposite coast most of my life and even I knew about LAPD's awful reputation. It was the cops who killed the case - their reputation had to overcome an almost completely Black jury.

Once the State's case was over I thought there is no way OJ is going to walk. But then the defense brought in two women who met Mark Fuhrman and testified about his misogyny and his racist language during several interviews they conducted with him. They were (pretending?) to be involved in a show about cops. And they got him to say lots of things on tape, and those tapes were played for the jury. And then the defense brought back Mark Fuhrman himself. And the following question probably sunk the case all by itself - "have you ever planted evidence in any criminal case"" To which Mark Fuhrman, sho single handedly collected almost all the really "good" evidence against OJ - victims blood in OJ's car, one bloody glove found at the scene, the other found on OJ's property behind Kato's cottage, and lots more. His answer to the question about ever planting evidence? He pleaded the 5th. In front of the jury. Made up mostly of people who either knew, or knew of, Black men being railroaded into prison by planted evidence.

IMO it wasn't so much the prosecution, but the cops long history of racist behavior that killed this case. They can blame Marcia Clark all they want. But Lange needs to look hard in the mirror and ask himself did he just turn the other cheek or look the other way when his fellow cops were planting evidence? Clark may not have been perfect or made 100% correct choices, but how many prosecutors do make perfect choices in any case. IMO the cops are the the ones who blew the case. I don't believe they planted a single piece of evidence against OJ, but their history came right back to bite the case in it's butt. And OJ got away with murder because of how many innocent Black men were railroaded, or beaten in the streets, like Rodney King, by the same police department.

[Reality Check]

There is no doubt that prior behavior of the LAPD was a huge factor in OJ's acquittal. I would love to know how much of Mark Fuhrman's past Clark knew before she put him on the stand. I get the impression that Lange thinks at some point Clark decided if they were going to lose the case she wanted the blame to go to the LAPD. He never actually says that but it's obvious he doesn't trust or like her. I can understand the bad blood between her and the LAPD> When your key witness pleads the Fifth when asked if he ever planted evidence and used racial slurs in the past there isn't much you can do to overcome that damage.

I am going to have to go back and see if I can find some post trial interviews with Clark now.

[p0rtia]

There is no doubt that prior behavior of the LAPD was a huge factor in OJ's acquittal. I would love to know how much of Mark Fuhrman's past Clark knew before she put him on the stand. I get the impression that Lange thinks at some point Clark decided if they were going to lose the case she wanted the blame to go to the LAPD. He never actually says that but it's obvious he doesn't trust or like her. I can understand the bad blood between her and the LAPD> When your key witness pleads the Fifth when asked if he ever planted evidence and used racial slurs in the past there isn't much you can do to overcome that damage.

I am going to have to go back and see if I can find some post trial interviews with Clark now.

As I said, jury nullification, 100 percent. In the jury room, the first poll was the two white jurors for guilty, and the ten Black jurors for not-guilty. Many of the jurors have since said they knew he did it (after the fact), but hung on "not proven." Some of them mentioned Rodney King. Yes, I know, tons of people will say it _was_ "not proven" on the day, but to me there was "proven" and "a ton of smoke."

I wonder if Shively's testimony would have made a not-guilty verdict impossible. We'll never know. Would the photos of OJ wearing the Bruno Mali shoes he denied owning have done it? WNK.

I remember reading somewhere that Clarke had the wrong time-line. I think, IIRC, she wanted the barking dog to be the time of the murders, but it didn't jibe with a lot of the other evidence--and did not jive with Shively's testimony (which was one reason she let it go). Note also, that in the above interview, Shively says she turned down the 5,000 bucks initially offered, though she later accepted 2,500, which she gave to the lawyer she had to hire.

I've always liked Kato--because (and not despite) his whacked out syntax. He is pretty much incapable of churning out an English sentence of more than six words without becoming entangled in the grammar. It seemed to me that you could see on his face that he thought OJ did it, but was trying to be fair. Then, Clarke (in dumb move number 9) had him declared a hostile witness because he "wasn't answering her questions". The look on his face--fear, disbelief, confusion--was compelling to me. He did much better in the Civil Trial (am I seriously the only person who's read the transcripts???) where he was clearly invited to say "yes" or "no" and given questions that allowed him to do that. Whatever silly stuff he's done with his life, he's above all else a pleaser, and someone who doesn't want conflict. And I can't believe he's done a slew of radio shows/podcasts, because of the difficulty he has speaking with any sort of formality. I'd love to see his written language/emails and such; bet it's a ton better.

[bob]

Off Topic

I've always liked Kato--because (and not despite) his whacked out syntax.

Back in the day, I went to a comedy show, and the host said, "Our next performer needs no introduction: Kato Kaelin!"

The audience chortled.

The next performer was, in fact, Kaelin.

Mediocre at best set.